about: warnings
Disclaimer: though I'm part of 
linkspam's team, and I was clearly inspired to talk about this as a consequence of my participation thereof, I'm not talking officially as a linkspam mod.
OK, there was a time when warnings meant far less to me than they do now--fannish acculturation will do wonders for your understanding of the world--and every now and then I'll come across someone who has that same understanding of them I had then, and I'll want to explain. But warnings' discussions are just... fraught, so I never do.
The first thing we have to delineate what types of thing we can slap warnings on. I would say: fanworks, recs, links, meta, conversations--pretty much anything. The kind I'll will be speaking about is mainly meta, and posts made in panfannish and fannish discussions.
Then... what are warnings?
Warnings are pretty much what their name indicates--a notice that alerts the person reading about the content. It doesn't necessarily mark bad things, though they generally do.
The 'simplest' kind (which is not simple at all, go figure) is the one used for common triggers. Those are things that are 'commonly accepted' (variable definitions of 'commonly' and 'accepted', but bear with me) to cause a strong negative and involuntary reaction in people who have triggers. In the list we can name rape, non-con, death, graphic violence, and others. (You can go here for a far better explanation about them. Warning: Very explicit discussion of sexual assault and the nature, anatomy, cause & effect of triggers. Is itself triggery.)
Then there are particular triggers, which we cannot guess about (though we can be told), like, idk, a detailed description of a particular kind of situation (calculus class), or a particular colour in a particular context.
Then there is stuff that isn't necessarily a trigger, exactly (though it can be), but can be deeply upsetting, like hate speech, or speech dismissive about oppressions; ablist, homophobic, transphobic, or racist (or any -ist) vocabulary, or speech casually disregarding people's identity and experiences, &c. (I think you can guess a pattern.)
A warning is not a judgement on the people who made the content. It can also be accompanied with a private or public judgement (to say anything else would be disingenuous), but a warning in itself has nothing to do with the author of that content. It's a call made by the one putting up the warning (i.e. it's a call made by a person or a group, and thus, invariably subjective and flawed) done for the benefit of the people who don't, yet, know the content.
Why would one warn?
Well, sometimes one is interested in keeping people from harm. Harm is particularly obvious in the case of triggers, and though not so obvious, also visible in the other cases (people who form part of oppressed groups are surrounded everywhere by these kind of oppressive speech patterns, it shapes the world they live in, and their interactions with it--to provide, as much as one is able, with a notice, will help them protect their own emotional well-being, if they so desire).
When do we warn?
It's often that people will warn for common triggers, and perhaps hate speech. There is people who won't warn for these kinds of things either, but there was a recent panfandom discussion about this, and I think we can skip it for now, because my subject is another.
The point of this post is this: people don't often warn about the others. This is for different reasons. People don't tend to know of the other triggers. People feel that the damage done by oppressive speech patterns is not important enough (or big enough) that it would be necessary to warn for it. People are not aware that that harms exists, and denies it. People don't know enough to judge the line between something that is not quite right and something that needs a warning, and thus is unwilling to make that call. Also, people are afraid that a warning will feel like an attack, for the people who wrote the original content.
Obviously there are exceptions. (People who particular deal with -isms tend to warn more, for example.)
The call is not simple. People making it will make mistakes. I personally I'm of the opinion one should better over-warn rather than under, simply because I prefer to play it safe for the other people (they can always read anyway. I think if they're bracing themselves, they're less likely to be hurt, too--though that may be projecting because it's what's true for me).
But anyway. I'm not saying everyone should warn. Not everywhere is a safe space, not everyone has the time or the spoons to do it. Not everyone wants to, and hey, it's a (mostly) free 'net. But consequently, people are not often used to these kinds of warnings. And there are few spaces where people can be reasonably sure they will be warned before being smacked in the face, which is counter-productive to those people's enjoyment of our communal spaces.
And I get that, more than trigger warnings, which are mostly neutral, these kinds of warnings imply your text is oppressive in some way to minorities. And yes, I can get why that is upsetting.
But I'm going, as the whole point of this post, to be asking that you stop before reacting to it, and think very hard on your own actions, if it ever happens to you. Because here's the deal: it's not an attack. We all have our moments (I most of all!), and yeah, it's upsetting to own we can be callous, or ignorant, or offensive when we don't mean to be. And it's upsetting to have it laid bare for all to see, and perhaps more upsetting of all if we know it's right. (Though the feeling of being accused unjustly is never agreeable, in the context we move, it doesn't carry all that much weight. It can't change your life, &c.) But also, it's not marking you as an irredeemable whatever-ist. (I should know! I'm constantly hurting people and vowing to do better in the future. It's probably common as far as people with privilege go.)
If you think your text is what the warning says it is, and you're upset about it, then try to correct it in the future, or even in the present, acknowledging you made a mistake, by adding an ETA to your post. If you feel it isn't, then move on. What is the damage done to you by it? At most, a slight change in how some people perceive you? It will perhaps mean that somebody will not read your content. Is that so terrible? And in the chance--the smallest, ridiculous chance you may be wrong--isn't it worth it, that someone is being helped to protect themselves from harm?
This entry was originally posted at dreamwidth. That post has
comment(s). You can comment there, or here.
linkspam's team, and I was clearly inspired to talk about this as a consequence of my participation thereof, I'm not talking officially as a linkspam mod.
OK, there was a time when warnings meant far less to me than they do now--fannish acculturation will do wonders for your understanding of the world--and every now and then I'll come across someone who has that same understanding of them I had then, and I'll want to explain. But warnings' discussions are just... fraught, so I never do.
The first thing we have to delineate what types of thing we can slap warnings on. I would say: fanworks, recs, links, meta, conversations--pretty much anything. The kind I'll will be speaking about is mainly meta, and posts made in panfannish and fannish discussions.
Then... what are warnings?
Warnings are pretty much what their name indicates--a notice that alerts the person reading about the content. It doesn't necessarily mark bad things, though they generally do.
The 'simplest' kind (which is not simple at all, go figure) is the one used for common triggers. Those are things that are 'commonly accepted' (variable definitions of 'commonly' and 'accepted', but bear with me) to cause a strong negative and involuntary reaction in people who have triggers. In the list we can name rape, non-con, death, graphic violence, and others. (You can go here for a far better explanation about them. Warning: Very explicit discussion of sexual assault and the nature, anatomy, cause & effect of triggers. Is itself triggery.)
Then there are particular triggers, which we cannot guess about (though we can be told), like, idk, a detailed description of a particular kind of situation (calculus class), or a particular colour in a particular context.
Then there is stuff that isn't necessarily a trigger, exactly (though it can be), but can be deeply upsetting, like hate speech, or speech dismissive about oppressions; ablist, homophobic, transphobic, or racist (or any -ist) vocabulary, or speech casually disregarding people's identity and experiences, &c. (I think you can guess a pattern.)
A warning is not a judgement on the people who made the content. It can also be accompanied with a private or public judgement (to say anything else would be disingenuous), but a warning in itself has nothing to do with the author of that content. It's a call made by the one putting up the warning (i.e. it's a call made by a person or a group, and thus, invariably subjective and flawed) done for the benefit of the people who don't, yet, know the content.
Why would one warn?
Well, sometimes one is interested in keeping people from harm. Harm is particularly obvious in the case of triggers, and though not so obvious, also visible in the other cases (people who form part of oppressed groups are surrounded everywhere by these kind of oppressive speech patterns, it shapes the world they live in, and their interactions with it--to provide, as much as one is able, with a notice, will help them protect their own emotional well-being, if they so desire).
When do we warn?
It's often that people will warn for common triggers, and perhaps hate speech. There is people who won't warn for these kinds of things either, but there was a recent panfandom discussion about this, and I think we can skip it for now, because my subject is another.
The point of this post is this: people don't often warn about the others. This is for different reasons. People don't tend to know of the other triggers. People feel that the damage done by oppressive speech patterns is not important enough (or big enough) that it would be necessary to warn for it. People are not aware that that harms exists, and denies it. People don't know enough to judge the line between something that is not quite right and something that needs a warning, and thus is unwilling to make that call. Also, people are afraid that a warning will feel like an attack, for the people who wrote the original content.
Obviously there are exceptions. (People who particular deal with -isms tend to warn more, for example.)
The call is not simple. People making it will make mistakes. I personally I'm of the opinion one should better over-warn rather than under, simply because I prefer to play it safe for the other people (they can always read anyway. I think if they're bracing themselves, they're less likely to be hurt, too--though that may be projecting because it's what's true for me).
But anyway. I'm not saying everyone should warn. Not everywhere is a safe space, not everyone has the time or the spoons to do it. Not everyone wants to, and hey, it's a (mostly) free 'net. But consequently, people are not often used to these kinds of warnings. And there are few spaces where people can be reasonably sure they will be warned before being smacked in the face, which is counter-productive to those people's enjoyment of our communal spaces.
And I get that, more than trigger warnings, which are mostly neutral, these kinds of warnings imply your text is oppressive in some way to minorities. And yes, I can get why that is upsetting.
But I'm going, as the whole point of this post, to be asking that you stop before reacting to it, and think very hard on your own actions, if it ever happens to you. Because here's the deal: it's not an attack. We all have our moments (I most of all!), and yeah, it's upsetting to own we can be callous, or ignorant, or offensive when we don't mean to be. And it's upsetting to have it laid bare for all to see, and perhaps more upsetting of all if we know it's right. (Though the feeling of being accused unjustly is never agreeable, in the context we move, it doesn't carry all that much weight. It can't change your life, &c.) But also, it's not marking you as an irredeemable whatever-ist. (I should know! I'm constantly hurting people and vowing to do better in the future. It's probably common as far as people with privilege go.)
If you think your text is what the warning says it is, and you're upset about it, then try to correct it in the future, or even in the present, acknowledging you made a mistake, by adding an ETA to your post. If you feel it isn't, then move on. What is the damage done to you by it? At most, a slight change in how some people perceive you? It will perhaps mean that somebody will not read your content. Is that so terrible? And in the chance--the smallest, ridiculous chance you may be wrong--isn't it worth it, that someone is being helped to protect themselves from harm?
This entry was originally posted at dreamwidth. That post has
comment(s). You can comment there, or here.